Re: 7200 vs 7600 VLANs
- From: Steinar Haug <sthaug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 20 Jan 2006 20:11:27 +0100
> >From a switch point of view, if the same VLAN shows up on two different
> physical interfaces, then it should bridge the data streams from the
> two physical ports. So, a broadcast received on VLAN 1 on port A will
> be switched to VLAN 1 on port B.
Agreed, this is standard *switch* behavior. A router, by default,
doesn't behave like this at all.
> Now we get to the router application: if I have two physical ports, can
> I use the same VLAN on both ports? IF yes, will it treat them as a
> single subnet or as two distinct subnets.
Yes, you can use the same VLAN on both ports, they are treated as two
distinct subnets.
> I could see that the router
> could logicaly extend the number of VLANs supported by using the
> physical port ID as a way to increase the number of VLANs supported
> (i.e. 4096 per physical port).
Yes, that is one way to increase the total number of VLANs (really, the
total number of customers).
> OR..is it a simple fact that, regardless of switch or router, I can
> only have 4096 distinct outter VLAN tags per switch/router chassis?
Only 4096 distinct outer VLAN tags is a limitation of many *switch*
platforms. There is no particular reason to have such a reason for a
*router* platform. The fact that the Cisco 7600 "router" has such a
limitation simply shows its switch ancestry.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- 7200 vs 7600 VLANs
- From: zigipha
- Re: 7200 vs 7600 VLANs
- From: zigipha
- 7200 vs 7600 VLANs
- Prev by Date: Re: Contracts that allow upgrade of IOS?
- Next by Date: HTTP access and AAA.
- Previous by thread: Re: 7200 vs 7600 VLANs
- Next by thread: Cisco Custom Historical Report for Cisco Customer Response Applications
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
